Talk:Citadel Securities

Citadel Securities has a longstanding history of being charged with, fined for, and accused of market manipulation. Since 2007 the firm has been fined more than $348 Million (cumulative) ^[1] globally in relation to violation of laws and regulations.

Here are some examples of fines from the SEC:

• SEC Charges Citadel Securities for Violating Order Marking Requirements of Short Sale Regulations. ^[2] $7 million.

“Compliance with the order marking requirements of Reg SHO is a key component of regulatory efforts to curtail abusive market practices, including ‘naked’ short selling,” said Mark Cave, Associate Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “This action against Citadel Securities demonstrates that a broker-dealer’s failure to comply with the requirements of Reg SHO can have negative downstream consequences on the accuracy of the firm’s electronic records, including its electronic blue sheet reporting, depriving the Commission of important information about the markets it regulates.”

• Citadel Securities Paying $22 Million for Misleading Clients About Pricing Trades.^[3] $22.6 million.

"Citadel Securities made misleading statements suggesting that it would provide or try to get the best prices it saw for retail orders routed by other broker-dealers," said Stephanie Avakian, Acting Director of the SEC Enforcement Division. "Internalizers can't suggest they are doing one thing yet do another when it comes to pricing trades."

• Three Broker-Dealers to Pay More Than $6 Million in Penalties for Providing Deficient Blue Sheet Data ^[4] $3.5 million.

"Citadel, the largest provider of blue sheet data of the firms charged today, submitted incorrect data for nearly 80 million trades . . . None of the firms had adequate processes designed to validate the accuracy of its submissions . . . The SEC’s orders also found that Citadel, Natixis, and MUFG willfully violated the broker-dealer books and records and reporting provisions. The firms admitted the findings in the SEC’s cease and desist orders and agreed to be censured and to pay penalties"

Please note the above list is not an exhaustive list of fines Citadel Securities has paid to the SEC. For further information see the SEC website. Atolson1 (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I think this content is vitally important to any readers who come to this article as it will help them to understand that Citadel Securities has been charged, fined, and accused of market manipulation many, many times in recent years. I am not sure if InvestorTurf is a wikipedia allowed website source. Do you happen to have any other sources where this information is available? The SEC.gov links are great source documents and I think they provide great context around the allegations, charges, and fines. Alecmvqb (talk) 22:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I have indeffed Alecmvqb (talk · contribs) per WP:DUCK. Johnuniq (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi. I would like to request that the following edits be made as updates to the "Introduction" and "History" sections:

• Citadel has moved its headquarters to Miami. Please change the last sentence in the "Introduction" to reflect that this event is in the past, as follows:

Citadel Securities moved its headquarters from Chicago to Miami ^[1][2] with plans to build a new headquarters on Brickell Bay Drive.^[3][4]

• At the end of the "2020" section in "History" please add the following update:

In 2020, Citadel Securities began selling US Treasury and dollar interest rate swap products in Hong Kong.^[5]

• In the "2022-2023" section, please add the following four sentences as updates in chronological order (Right between the two paragraphs that are in that section now):

In 2022, the company opened a new office in Japan.^[5]

By the end of 2022 Citadel Securities traded in over 35 countries and executed more than 20 percent of all US equity trades.^[6] The firm also trades futures, options, currencies and Treasury bonds.^[7]

As of February 2023, the Hong Kong based subsidiary of Citadel Securities was designated as a "qualified foreign institutional investor" or QFII, by the Chinese government, giving the company more access to mainland China's bond and stock markets.^[8]

In June 2023, Citadel Securities became active in corporate debt trading and introduced investment-grade trading to clients.^[9]

Thanks so much. Cduffymul (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Done Encoded Talk to me! 16:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much Encoded for implementing this edit request. I wonder if you wouldn’t mind taking a look at another edit request I recently posted for Kenneth C. Griffin here: Talk:Kenneth_C._Griffin#Add_to_Philanthropy. Could you please implement if you agree with the edits? Thanks again. Cduffymul (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi. I have a few requests to update the page, as follows:

• In the 2011-2019 section of the History section, please add the following sentence and source right after the first sentence of the third paragraph that begins: "By 2015 Citadel Securities had become…"

In 2016, the company opened a new office in Sydney, Australia.^[1]

• At the end of the History section, please update the heading to 2022-2024 and add the following as a new paragraph:

In June 2024, the company began trading Euro and Sterling interest-rate swaps. Citadel Securities grew its existing 120-person global rates team in London and Paris to support the expansion, and named Paris as the firm's trading hub for European rates.^[2]

• Please add that Peng Zhao became the CEO in 2016 into the Introduction, after the second paragraph:

Peng Zhao, who joined the company in 2006, has been the CEO since 2017.^[3]

• Please add language to the first sentences of the Introduction to clarify what it is that a "market making" firm does, and to add to the list of activities the company is engaged in. The first two sentences of the Introduction therefore should be as follows:

Citadel Securities LLC is an American market making firm providing liquidity and trade execution to retail and institutional clients, headquartered in Miami.^[4][5][6] The firm also trades futures, equities, credit, options, currencies, and Treasury bonds.

Thanks so much. I am pinging Encoded who implemented the previous edit request. Cduffymul (talk) 13:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Done Encoded  Talk 💬 15:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I would like to add the following to the Partnerships and History sections.

• Please add the following information to the end of the Partnerships section:

Citadel Securities has partnered with other financial firms to launch several exchanges. Among those exchanges are the Members Exchange, or MEMX;^[1][2] the Texas Stock Exchange, or TXSE;^[3] EDX Markets, or EDXM, a crypto exchange for institutional investors;^[4] and the FMX Futures Exchange.^[5]

• Please add the following to the end of the History section:

In September 2024, Citadel Securities hired Jim Esposito, former co-head of global banking and markets at Goldman Sachs, as president.^[6]

Thanks so much. Cduffymul (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

This request has been implemented, thanks Ptrnext! Cduffymul (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi - I would like to suggest more concise language for some of the more excessively detailed sections of this article, as per WP:UNDUE and WP:RELEVANCE.

• Under the "2021" subsection, I propose the following summary of the information in the three paragraphs, beginning with "In February 2021" through "Griffin denied any wrongdoing:"

In 2021, a series of House Financial Services hearings^[1] addressed the large volume^[2] of Citadel Securities US equities trade,^[3][4][5] as well as potential conflicts of interest based on its role in executing retail trades in the GameStop short squeeze.^[6] Separately, in March, Citadel agreed to a censure by FINRA and a $275,000 fine for improperly reporting nearly $500,000 Treasury transactions between 2017-2019, revealing an issue in Citadel's compliance systems.^[7][8]

• In the 2022-2024 subsection, please summarize the paragraph beginning with "In September 2023" through "denying the findings" as follows:

In September 2023, the SEC and Citadel agreed to a $7 million settlement without admitting or denying the findings of Regulation SHO violations.^[9][10]

Thank you. Cduffymul (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done The requested revision removes notable, properly sourced context. This is not WP:UNDUE STEMinfo (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi STEMinfo, thanks for looking into this. I took your feedback under advisement and revised the request below.

• I carefully read through the current language on the page and cross-referenced with the sources. As I mentioned above, the detail in this section seemed excessive, in addition to quote-heavy, and I believe this version is the most accurate and encyclopedic portrayal of the Congressional hearings.
• As this is an updated suggestion, I have also reopened the request.

2021

Several House Financial Services hearings were held between February and March. Maxine Waters suggested that the systematic importance of Citadel Securities might ultimately pose a threat to the U.S. financial system,^[1][2],that chairwoman Maxine Waters suggested that the systematic importance of Citadel Securities might ultimately pose a threat to the U.S. financial system.^[3] This point also emerged on several occasions during the March 17 hearing by the House Financial Services, with experts observing that Citadel Securities claims to trade "approximately 26% of U.S. equities volume" and "executes approximately 47% of all U.S.-listed retail volume, and acts as a specialist or market-maker with respect to 99% of traded volume in 3,000 U.S.-listed options names."^[4][5] Gary Gensler,^[6]That same month, President Biden's nominee for SEC Chairman, Gary Gensler, raised further concerns about Citadel's dominant market position and concentration risk,^[7]at a congressional hearing in March, asking: "one firm now has 40% to 50% of the retail order flow, what does that do to pricing of capital in this country? What does it mean to be best execution in this context?"^[7] Invoking Amazon's dominance in the online retail marketplace, another market analyst described Citadel's rise as "the Amazonization of listed markets", a phenomenon he characterized as "very dangerous, not because there are no other players, but because over time it weakens the other players that could be competitive. It's the essence of concentration risk."^[7] On May 5, Gensler repeated these concerns in his testimony to the House of Representatives Financial Services Committee.^[8] and Senator Elizabeth Warren addressed the large volume of Citadel Securities US equities trade, the concern of Citadel Securities' dominant market position^[9], and potential conflicts of interest based on Ken Griffin's role as CEO and majority shareholder of Citadel, as well as owning 85% of Citadel Securities, and its role in executing retail trades in the GameStop short squeeze.^[10] Griffin denied any wrongdoing.^[10] Citadel's payment-for-order-flow arrangements with brokerages such as Robinhood was heavily criticized during Congressional hearings on the GameStop short squeeze.^[11] Citadel's practice of hiring officials from agencies that regulate it, including the SEC and the CFTC, as well its relationships with Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen, has also been widely observed and attracted concerns about conflicts of interest.^[12][13][14]

Separately, in March, Citadel Securities agreed to a censure by FINRA and a $275,000 fine for improperly reporting nearly 500,000 Treasury transactions between 2017 and 2019, revealing an issue in Citadel's compliance systems.^[15][16]

In November 2021, a U.S. District Court dismissed a class action lawsuit, ruling that investors failed to show collusion between Robinhood and Citadel Securities.^[17] In March, Citadel's payment-for-order-flow arrangements with brokerages such as Robinhood was heavily criticized during Congressional hearings on the GameStop short squeeze.^[18] Citadel's practice of hiring officials from agencies that regulate it, including the SEC and the CFTC, as well its relationships with Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen, has also been widely observed and attracted concerns about conflicts of interest.^[19][20][21]

STEMinfo, I welcome further discussion. Thank you. Cduffymul (talk) 15:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the section in question does seem quite long for the information it needs to portray, which could potentially be undue. However, the request cuts out information that I believe may be necessary for this article. For example the last cut. Rather than removing it outright, are there any sources that show a response from citadel or another opinion that could make it more balanced? Encoded  Talk 💬 11:46, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

The section under discussion is under a heading called "History." History is supposed to describe events whose effect is felt today or can tell us something about actions and consequences. This section describes complaints from two politicians, neither of whom has any influence today other than their chairmanships, and a statement from the SEC chairman. There is no indication that any legislation or policy changes came from it. I think a two sentence description of the hearings and the resulting action (or lack thereof) would be a sufficient treatment. Julian in LA (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, Wikipedia consensus is that notability is not fleeting. In other words, if something was notable once, it always is. If I'm understanding your point, history isn't edited out if something is not as relevant now as it was back in the day. See Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary. STEMinfo (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Here is what the guideline actually says: "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." The coverage at the time described only the hearings and the statements made by perhaps three politicians. That contributes to making the politicians notable, but the hearings were not notable unless other important people reacted to them. The impression I get from this article is that the hearings were ignored by the Executive Branch and the wider financial community. Julian in LA (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not judging the article content on its merits, only commenting on your assertion. I think you might be misreading the guideline. It is saying that something does not need to have ongoing coverage (in the media) to remain notable, for Wikipedia's purposes. It's not saying that if something isn't covered in the media anymore that it can be removed from the article. Or am I misunderstanding your point? STEMinfo (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps you are looking at my statement, "two politicians, neither of whom has any influence today other than their chairmanships." If they were genuinely powerful at the time, their hearing might deserve more coverage. My impression of Maxine Waters and Elizabeth Warren is that they both said outrageous things to get quoted in the newspapers, but no significant legislation was ever attributed to them. Julian in LA (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I went back and looked at the article. It has several quotes from Gary Gensler, who was a genuinely powerful person at the time. The fact that Maxine Waters and Elizabeth Warren were moaning about the same things is not notable for this company. An appropriate history section would describe Gensler's objections and ignore the toothless committee. Julian in LA (talk) 22:42, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I think the fact that you describe a Senator and Representative as not "genuinely powerful", their committees as "toothless", and their actions as "moaning" show that you are not approaching this discussion from a NPOV at all. And that you would do that while defending a requested edit made by paid contributor, wow..... Gb321 (talk) 08:04, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Not done: No consensus could be obtained for making the requested change. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 14:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi all, I appreciate the discussion here. AlphaBetaGamma, I have reopened the request in an effort to clarify with the various editors here. I believe there is consensus between Encoded and Julian in LA regarding the level of detail in the 2021 section. The only concern that Encoded had raised was the removal of information, which I had actually not removed at all, rather moved to a different section of the article. Based on the feedback from these two editors, in addition to earlier feedback from STEMinfo, I propose the following updated language below to be implemented, as it maintains the general history of the 2021 events without the seemingly irrelevant details:

Between February and March, in several House Financial Services hearings, Maxine Waters,^[1] Gary Gensler,^[2] and Senator Elizabeth Warren^[3] separately addressed how Citadel Securities' dominant market position could pose a potential future threat to the US financial system. Warren raised further concern regarding Griffin's potential conflicts of interest.^[4] Congressional hearings further criticized Citadel's payment-for-order-flow arrangements, and their relationship with Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen^[5] as well as its practice of hiring officials from agencies that regulate it, including the SEC^[6] and CFTC.^[7]

Separately, in March, Citadel Securities agreed to a censure by FINRA and a $275,000 fine for improperly reporting nearly 500,000 Treasury transactions between 2017-2019, revealing an issue in Citadel's compliance systems.^[8][9]

In November 2021, a U.S. District Court dismissed a class action lawsuit, ruling that investors failed to show collusion between Robinhood and Citadel Securities.^[10]

Thank you all Cduffymul (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

The new wording is fine, except for the description of the meme stock lawsuit. I will post my own description of that suit, making it clear that it has nothing to do with the accusations in the congressional hearing. Julian in LA (talk) 01:32, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Julian in LA, thanks for looking over the new language. Since you agree with it, would you mind implementing? Thanks Cduffymul (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Done. I revised the section on the investors lawsuit. I hope you agree that it's an improvement. The referenced article talks about a "conspiracy" but I don't see any accusation of a criminal conspiracy, so I changed it to collusion. Julian in LA (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The changes suggested removing content that is well-cited or where sources exist.

Hi. I would like to propose trimming two paragraphs in the History section, which contain more detail than is necessary, per WP:UNDUE.

• In the second paragraph of the "2011 – 2019" sub-section, please remove the excessive details after the first sentence. What should remain is:

In August 2014, Citadel was fined $800,000 ($1.09 million in 2025) for irregularities in its trading practices between March 18, 2010, and January 8, 2013.^[1]

• In the second paragraph of the "2020 – present" sub-section, please replace the paragraph with the following, which leaves out the extra details:

Citadel Securities was censured by U.S. regulators seven times for different types of misconduct, including naked short selling and not closing failure-to-deliver positions, and fined a total of slightly less than 1 million in 2020.^[2] The firm also paid a 670 million-yuan ($97 million) settlement to Chinese regulators for trading irregularities dating from 2015.^[3]

Thanks so much. Pinging Julian in LA who helped with the last edit request. Cduffymul (talk) 13:39, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Not done: The proposed changes are removing content that is well-cited or where sources exist. If you want to pursue this proposal further per WP:UNDUE, I recommend you seek consensus from interested editors beforehand. Cheers, DiscoursesonLivvy (talk · contribs) 23:23, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the text should not be removed. Actions by pointy-headed bureaucrats are meaningless unless we know why they were done. I will modify the section to remove the "contradictory" tag and add an explanation. Citadel paid fines in two different actions, six years apart. Julian in LA (talk) 19:51, 19 April 2026 (UTC)